One College that sees undergraduate life whole
 

The 1970 Task Force recommended the integration of undergraduate education at the University of Pennsylvania ... (nevertheless) no integration of undergraduate education has occurred.  We believe that the integration of undergraduate education deserves the most serious study.   (Therefore) we recommend that the Steering Committee of University Council, in consultation with the Deans of the undergraduate schools promptly establish a select panel to consider the integration of undergraduate education.  The panel should include knowledgeable representatives from all Schools which are significantly involved in undergraduate education.  The panel should assess the advantages and disadvantages of integrating undergraduate education and report its findings and conclusions to University Council  1978 Task Force on University Governance  May 3, 1979 ...the goal of "seeing life whole" will only be attained when it is effectively institutionalized with sufficient concreteness to ensure that implementation follows rhetoric.  Clearly, no one school can achieve this.  Likewise, experience has shown that the internal dynamics and priorities of the individual schools are too strong - and too diverse - to permit the schools operating collectively to achieve this aim.  Finally, it would be inappropriate for the Provost to attempt to achieve them by administrative fiat.  Thus there remains a need for a 'fifth force' in undergraduate education, a locus, focus, and facilitator of the kinds of initiatives that have failed to reach fruition in the past and that would foster greater cohesion throughout the undergraduate experience.  Interim Report, The University's New Five Year Planning Process  February 28, 1989 The call for the integration of undergraduate education at Penn is not new.  It was suggested in 1970 and again in 1978.  During the 1980's, however, it was decided that the schools were 'too strong and too diverse' to permit integration.  Instead 'a fifth force,' the residential living programs, was proposed as an alternative to integration.  Rather than achieving the desired goals the fifth force has further fragmented undergraduate education since it has not been tied closely to the four undergraduate schools.  The residential living programs have made an important contribution to the intellectual life of the University; however, that contribution needs to be well coordinated with the other aspects of undergraduate education. I believe that it is now time to take a systemic approach to undergraduate education and form a common structure led by an undergraduate dean who would have full financial and administrative responsibility for all aspects of undergraduate education and would sit as a peer with the other 12 deans.  Those undergraduate programs currently administered by VPUL should be transferred to the dean of the new undergraduate school.  Responsibility for the VPUL programs that support graduate education should be transferred to the Vice Provost for Graduate Education. There is already, at least for the first two years, de facto integration.  During freshman and sophomore year most Penn students take a remarkably similar course schedule, live together in the dorms and participate in the same extracurricular activities.  Learning takes place out of class as well as in class, in extracurricular activities and in informal discussions.  Advising takes place in faculty offices, in residences and through peer interactions.  Power at Penn is closely related to control of finances  For the dean of the undergraduate college to be a strong advocate for education he or she should, like all other deans, control 80% of the tuition paid by the undergraduate students and 100% of the external funds it could raise.   An integrated undergraduate college would present a strong focus for development efforts to support undergraduate education. Faculty would continue to receive primary appointments in the existing schools.  Those schools would have responsibility for appointments, promotions and other personnel matters as well as graduate education.  Financial transfers to the other schools will be made to support the costs of instruction.  By controlling this process the dean would be able to provide a positive incentive for quality  instruction and involvement in undergraduate education.  The dean of the undergraduate school would contribute to personnel decisions by providing recommendations on matters such as teaching and service to undergraduates. The dean would have no interest in promoting the finances of one school over another and the existing (perceived) restrictions on course enrollments outside a student's home school would disappear.  A strength of Penn is the proximity of the professional schools and liberal arts.  Students should be encouraged to explore widely throughout the University as well as to participate in interdisciplinary programs.  Artificial constraints to such exploration should be abolished. Following the handbook (page 19) the Faculty of the undergraduate college " ... shall set its regulations for instruction  of students and requirements for degrees in course and in faculty" as well as "determining the quality of the student body."  The Faculty of the new school will include members of the Faculties of the schools that currently have undergraduate programs as well as others from throughout the University.  Responsibility for the major programs would remain with the individual departments and programs.  An attempt should be made to move toward a common academic experience for the first two years.  Such an attempt must be balanced with the need for certification in fields such as nursing and engineering. The competitive advantage that the Wharton School provides should be built upon.  A smaller number of students should be admitted directly into business majors while the opportunity to enter these programs based upon academic performance is provided to a larger number of students.  Hopefully this would ameliorate the situation where many students apply to SAS with the intention of transferring to Wharton.  It should be recognized that all programs and departments have a limit on the number of majors that can be accepted and that it may be necessary to limit acceptance into the major. The new school would, of course, be larger than the existing SAS.  Size would be a serious disadvantage of integration unless positive steps were taken to diminish the psychological size of the college.   An important step toward this goal would be the establishment of two year residential colleges.  Each college would have no more than 400 students and would have self contained dining facilities.  It would be expected that all undergraduates would live in a residential college for their first two years at Penn.  In particular, fraternity and sorority rushing would be deferred until second semester sophomore year.  A master and faculty fellows would be associated to each college.  Advising during the first two years should be centered in the residential college.  Academic advising after the first two years should be centered in the department of the major.  Students could maintain a relationship with a college after their sophomore year or could transfer to a thematic college which could be either virtual or physical. The recently released report of the Commission on Strengthening the Community contains proposals on residential life and advising.  In addition, Provost Lazerson has recently discussed tying the activities of the VPUL more closely to the undergraduate schools.  Undergraduate education needs to be viewed as a whole; it would be a mistake to undertake change on a piecemeal basis.  The proposals contained above provide only an outline of a comprehensive plan to restructure undergraduate education.  Much work is required to fill in details, provide a transition from the current structure and raise funds to support our vision of residential colleges. I call upon the provost in consultation with the deans of the undergraduate schools  to establish promptly a Task Force of faculty, students and academic administrators to plan for the integration of all aspects of undergraduate education.  The Task Force should include knowledgeable representatives from all Schools that are significantly involved in undergraduate education and should have a broad mandate to consider all aspects of undergraduate education. To attract the best undergraduates to Penn we must build upon those strengths that are unique to Penn.  An integrated undergraduate program that draws upon the resources of the entire University while maintaining the intimacy of a small college will place us in strong competitive position.  We must act to capitalize upon this advantage; our future depends upon it.